Finkel v. Hawley

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Finkel v. Hawley

15 A.D.2d 919, 1962 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11132

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedMarch 5, 1962

StatusPublished

This text of 15 A.D.2d 919 (Finkel v. Hawley) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Finkel v. Hawley, 15 A.D.2d 919, 1962 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11132 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1962).

Pincite

Opinion

In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant Hawley appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated November 10, 1960, which granted plaintiffs’ motion, made pursuant to rule 113 of the Rules of Civil Practice, to strike out the said defendant’s answer and for summary judgment against him; directed an assessment of plaintiffs’ damages; and severed the action against the remaining defendants. Order reversed, without costs, and plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment against defendant Hawley denied. Under all the circumstances disclosed by this record, it has not been established that there is no triable issue of fact as to whether the said defendant was negligent. Ughetta, Acting P. J., Christ, Brennan, Hill and Rabin, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant Hawley appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated November 10, 1960, which granted plaintiffs’ motion, made pursuant to rule 113 of the Rules of Civil Practice, to strike out the said defendant’s answer and for summary judgment against him; directed an assessment of plaintiffs’ damages; and severed the action against the remaining defendants. Order reversed, without costs, and plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment against defendant Hawley denied. Under all the circumstances disclosed by this record, it has not been established that there is no triable issue of fact as to whether the said defendant was negligent. Ughetta, Acting P. J., Christ, Brennan, Hill and Rabin, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

15 A.D.2d 919, 1962 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11132, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/finkel-v-hawley-nyappdiv-1962.